The future is unwritten...

which one we get is up to us
SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 11:56PM

Do I have to support the "good war?'

Rate: 3 Flag

I want the women of Afghanistan to be liberated. Do I have to support the war?
 
Short answer: No. In fact, supporting the war only works against their liberation.
 
If you can’t stand the idea of The Handmaid’s Tale come to life; set in a dusty, third world country and despise the thought of women being kept out of schools and in large respects the outright chattel property of their fathers or husbands, then in fact you must work as hard as you can to end the continuing U.S. occupation and war against Afghanistan (as well as Iraq, Pakistan, and the potential war against Iran that still lies “on the table”). The reality is that The Handmaid’s Tale continues… While the Taliban were and are harshly oppressive – they are cut from the same fundamentalist cloth as the Northern Alliance which the U.S. brought to power, and the current regime has meant even more acute suffering for most women living in Afghanistan.
 
Pro-war imperialists, including everyone from Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama to the truly laughable fascist types on FOX News have argued that the war in Afghanistan is necessary to bring the girls of Afghanistan a chance to be free. This is not about Clinton valiantly struggling to put women’s rights on the agenda and sometimes succeeding against all odds. This is not about Obama’s administration “fixing” mistakes made by the bumbling Bush/Cheney regime. This is about a war for empire, pure and simple. The rhetoric about the oppression of women provides a convenient excuse for the continued occupation but does not justify the war- not from the initiation nor the present day bombs still raining on wedding parties.
 
It’s more than the scandals that reveal that the mercenaries protecting the US embassy in Kabul have been buying and pimping women sex slaves in Afghanistan (which is, today, a major crossroads for international “sex trafficking” [read: slave trade]).  It’s more than the recent law passed in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (the full name of the country post- U.S. ‘liberation’) that explicitly legalizes marital rape as well as forcing women to dress and make themselves up (while in the home, of course) according to their husband’s demands, outlawing the ability to leave the home without a husband or a good reason to do so, and automatically granting custody of children to the male relatives (fathers or grandfathers). It’s not just the fact that the government has been cobbled together from the same warlords and fundamentalists that ruled the country before, in a fragile and fraught coalition under the corrupt Karzai regime.
 
It’s the fact that the whole relationship between the U.S. and the region (as well as the world) has been about imperialist domination in one form or another. For instance, Zbignew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, has bragged about “giving the USSR its own Vietnam” in Afghanistan by funding and arming the Mujahideen in the then pro-Soviet Afghanistan in 1979. The Mujahideen, of course, is the movement that eventually overthrew the government of Afghanistan, gave bin Laden his political start, and evolved into the Taliban of Afghanistan. The entire war on Afghanistan was, in fact, conceived before 9/11 at least in part to address the needed stability in order to build an oil pipeline across the country (see also: Parts 2 and 3 of the series by Larry Everest: "A War for Empire—Not a “Good War” Gone Bad").
 
When we marched in the streets in 2001 against the bombing of Afghanistan, we not only chanted “our grief is not a cry for war” but also, “bin Laden, Saddam, Pinochet: all created by the CIA” (perhaps a little over-simplified, but a good teaching chant!). The hysterics in the aftermath of 9/11 were designed to focus the grief and anger without regard for history into blind support of Bush’s crusade – which, as we know, didn’t stop at Afghanistan, and had larger goals than Iraq. This lopsided relationship of domination should not be bandaged or sustained by diplomacy or by the “international community.” It must be broken, and the people of Afghanistan must choose their own destiny. The more clearly we reject the brutality of “our own” country’s occupations (and airstrikes against countries the U.S. hasn’t declared war on, like Pakistan), the more clearly we can show the people of Afghanistan that the choice for them isn’t between death from above and puppets in Kabul vs. the known vicious repression of the Taliban; that there is another way for the people to fight, and another goal to fight for. The women of Afghanistan cannot be liberated as the whole nation is subjugated, ground up, and bombed. As the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) courageously wrote on the anniversary of the invasion last year:
“The path of the freedom-fighters of our country without doubt, will be very complex, difficult and bloody; but if our demand is to be freed from the chains of the slavery of foreigners and their Talib and Jehadi lackeys, we should not fear trial or death to become triumphant.”
 
This is not a time to “wait and see” what happens. It has been far too long, and far too many have died. 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
The Dems have taken a lot of heat for being weak on national security (odd, since Wilson, FDR and HST were Dems). Afghanistan is about Obama trying to prove to the country that he's tough on national security. Period.

R
You're right on the money, plus what John said. Obama falls into the trap of thinking it means you have guts if you wage a war when in reality it takes guts for us to pull out. I hate the outrages of the Taliban as much as anybody but every society has to take responsibility for itself.
i think staying in afghanistan may have something to do with gas pipelines, may have something to do with keeping nuclear weapons out of jihadi hands, and may have something to do with stabilizing the area long enough to re-elect obama. not forgeting the need to keep the munitions business flourishing..

but so what? you can't do anything about it. it doesn't concern you, unless you are a member of the political class. i used to be amazed that people who superficially had an interest in politics had no interest in creating the democracy that makes that interest functional. now i am wiser: a society of 300 million people can function while believing the earth is flat, darwin was a demon, and periodic economic catastrophe is natural and good for them.
It is maybe worth of remembering that Taliban was a creation by Americans.

The purpose of the war in Afghanistan seems to be only to defend American's interests there.

People should start resisting the war similar ways as they resisted the American war in Vietnam. The war in Afghanistan must be even worse than the war in Vietnam. Modern weapons can kill even more brutal ways than the weapons, which were used in Vietnam.
There are some good signs now. This is from today's yahoo news:

----------
The head of the House's defense spending panel, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., this week questioned the logic of adding troops.

"In Vietnam it took 500,000 troops and that didn't solve the problem," the Vietnam veteran told the foreign policy blog The Cable. "We have to take a different approach."
------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090915/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_afghanistan
Isolationisim comes with its own consequences. We may say, let the (insert 3rd world country here) take care of their own, let them do whatever they wish, support their women and oppressed morally (whatever that means) but keep our troops home and don't fight.
That's all well and fine, but the long range consequences of refusing to act send a message to the rest of the world, a message that is already circulating among our most vile enemies.
It is essentially "You won't do it!" The idea of weakness in the face of crimes against humanity. It encourages bullies to do their worst, because they can act without consequences.
I beleive the opposite approach should be taken with Afganistan and Pakistan. Instead of being accused of being an empire while trying to set up independant nations, we should shed the illusion of kindness and simply plant our flag, declare them American States and police what remains as we see fit.
Any country that harbors terrorisim will face the same consquences. Of course, that will never happen. We refuse to embrace fully the idea that we have a responsiblity as an empire to expand and spread enlightenment to the savages.
Andy Heizeler: "Any country that harbors terrorism will face the same consequences. Of course, that will never happen. We refuse to embrace fully the idea that we have a responsibility as an empire to expand and spread enlightenment to the savages."

Do you have any proof that any 'terrorist' against America ever resided in Afghanistan?

Where are the real terrorists living?

The country, which has been tens of years using terror methods against other countries - that is of course the United States of America. That is the country, which is torturing prisoners, spying its own citizens, starting wars with pretexts created by its own secret services.

That kind of enlightenment the world certainly doesn't need. It would be great if Americans would forget their 'responsibilities' to expand their ideologies to the rest of the world.
Lina,
Excellent post. I think people need to understand that the reason Obama isn't pulling out of Afghanistan because he cares about what the conservatives think or that he fears he will be seen as weak on terrorism...it's because of saving the Empire. I would really encourage everyone to read Larry Everest's piece which Lina links to here.
Yes, and I totally agree with Chris Hedges: "it's time to stop begging Obama and get mad." Read his intense piece against moral cowardice here: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090914_stop_begging_obama_to_be_obama_and_get_mad/